MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which makes this a non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds context about persistence (permanent vs session-only) and where the token should be placed, but does not elaborate on side effects, security considerations, or failure modes. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description contains several sentences but each adds value: it explains the browser flow, the permanent config option, the session-only option, and the invocation methods. It is front-loaded with the purpose and concise enough given the multiple modes. Could be tightened slightly but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases: getting a link and authenticating with a token. It explains both permanent and temporary approaches. It does not mention error handling or specific response format, but that is not critical for such a tool. Overall it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single optional parameter 'token' is described in the text as a JWT ('<jwt>') and its usage is explained: pass it for session-only login after the user pastes it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's format and purpose, and also clarifies the no-arg invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authentication for IDE agents. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI server) and the action (log in), and explains how to obtain and provide the token. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the authentication flow rather than data queries or marketplace operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage instructions: either add a permanent header to the server config or call with a token for session-only login. It also explains the no-arg call to get a link. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for other auth methods), but the two modes cover the main scenarios clearly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The flightradar_* tools are clearly distinct from each other, but the server mixes them with generic platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) that serve different purposes and some overlap (connect vs. authenticate; marketplace vs. toolkit_info). This creates ambiguity about what the server is actually for.
There is a clear pattern for flightradar_* tools (prefix + resource), but the rest are named inconsistently: simple verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). No single naming convention is applied across the whole set.
Twelve tools is a reasonable number, but the count is inflated by six unrelated platform management tools that don't belong in a flight radar server. The set feels over-scoped for its stated name and under-scoped for a general MCP platform.
The flightradar_* tools cover core needs: aircraft lookup, airport info, nearby traffic, closest aircraft, military and type filters. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no flight tracks or scheduled arrivals), but the domain is well covered. The platform tools are irrelevant to flight radar but complete in themselves.